Tom,
I suggest that your following comment is a case of crossed wires. (There must be an elegant term for this in logic or linguistic philosophy, but "crossed wires" will do here.) I'm afraid I don't equate professional liars with scientists engaged in basic research. I don't think that molecular biologists regard themselves as "transcendent social altruists" for one minute. They're as selfish as anybody else and some of them are even tempted to develop their findings commercially. But, by and large, they are engaged in discovering what-is, not trying to persuade people into believing what-is-not. Keith At 09:06 18/09/02 -0700, you wrote: (TW) <<<< It's fun to lean back and day dream about scenarios of the future that are feasible on the assumption of scientist-saints. Just try working as a scientist-saint for a few years, though, and see what that does to your income and standing in the profession. The same is true of writers, graphic artists, musicians, architects, engineers -- most people with specialized training and skill are employed commercially. We wouldn't think of attributing some sort of transcedent social altruism to advertising copywriters as a profession. Why should we do so for molecular biologists? Or, more to the point, why should we believe advertising copywriters when, in their stints as content providers, they attribute transcendent social altruism to molecular biologists? >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
